Now that is a pathetically weak excuse for deciding on a cartridge. If you are so silly that you carry all of your ammunition in one pocket, and you are so inattentive that you lose it all without noticing, then you probably shouldn't be hunting. If you are that inept, you will likely loose your vehicle keys as well, and not be able to get to that local store anyways.
270 wsm vs 30-06
- Thread starter holfeldian
- Start date
Now that is a pathetically weak excuse for deciding on a cartridge. If you are so silly that you carry all of your ammunition in one pocket, and you are so inattentive that you lose it all without noticing, then you probably shouldn't be hunting. If you are that inept, you will likely loose your vehicle keys as well, and not be able to get to that local store anyways.
Yeah, I don't buy vehicles older than 1938 in case I lose all my sets of keys when I'm traveling to isolated places. 
The 270 WSM has become popular enough that you will find it in places you wouldn't expect, I would say it has definitely become more popular than both 7mm WSM and 300 WSM as far as availability of ammo goes, mainly because both the other WSM's don't give you much/any extra performance over their base rounds.
On a serious note, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 30-06! It's been the go-to round for moose hunting in my area and others for a very long time, for a reason! One of the only advantages the 270 wsm, 300 wsm, or 300 win mag would give you over 30-06 would be to have enough energy to effectively kill further out, and with the 30 cal loads naturally you get a bit more diameter for the wound channel, whether you feel it's needed or not is your opinion.
Just this year one of the young guys in our hunt camp took a bull moose at ~80 yards with a 270 win. It walked all of 10 steps and died, so don't get too mixed up in the hype about caliber and/or round power. If you have enough, you have enough...
The 270 WSM has become popular enough that you will find it in places you wouldn't expect, I would say it has definitely become more popular than both 7mm WSM and 300 WSM as far as availability of ammo goes, mainly because both the other WSM's don't give you much/any extra performance over their base rounds.On a serious note, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 30-06! It's been the go-to round for moose hunting in my area and others for a very long time, for a reason! One of the only advantages the 270 wsm, 300 wsm, or 300 win mag would give you over 30-06 would be to have enough energy to effectively kill further out, and with the 30 cal loads naturally you get a bit more diameter for the wound channel, whether you feel it's needed or not is your opinion.
Just this year one of the young guys in our hunt camp took a bull moose at ~80 yards with a 270 win. It walked all of 10 steps and died, so don't get too mixed up in the hype about caliber and/or round power. If you have enough, you have enough...
the spank
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Planet Earth Wearing My Tinfoil Hat
EXACTLY!! Same advice I always give when asked. If you lost or forgot your ammo which can you get in Timbuktu?
Admittedly I am biased, as you can tell by my User name, but 200 FPS and 400 ft/lb of energy out to 500 M and further is not what I would personally call similar. At 500 M, given the same bullet weight (going by the Winchester XP3 150gr ammo), the 270 WSM has 30% more energy, I would consider that substantial.
I think it should read more like the 30-06 is for older, wiser people, who know better, and dont like new fangled change. Rifle and ammo manufacturers will always try to reinvent the wheel with shiney new casings for old calibers... just depends on what new flavour of brass youre looking to buy.
I might call it 'significant'. Honestly; I'm impressed. It's one heck of a piece of engineering.
However, to be honest, I would call it significant if and only if I was good enough to reliably - every time - put one in Bambi's boiler room at 500m.
Given that I (and in real life, I suspect, 95% of everyone else on this forum) am not capable of doing that, then I would call it 'theoretical'.
For somebody that good and willing to cought up the extra costs, then it's certainly worth considering.
^You're absolutely right that the limitation in 99.9% of the case lies in the user, I'm just trying to give an accurate comparison, round for round. I know when I bought my last rifle, I was dead set on getting a browning X-bolt, and was trying to decide on caliber. In my case, the difference in price between the two was non-existent, and I decided to invest in reloading, so the difference in price of ammo is also irrelevant to me, thought it likely would not be for someone else. I may not be able to confidently hunt at 500M right now, but I do hope to achieve that some day, and feel confident with the rifle and caliber that I've chosen.
Most of the old guys shooting their old 30-06's will outshoot me with my 270 WSM every day of the week; everything has it's purpose. And BTW, there are infinitely more bullets with better ballistics and offerings in the .30 caliber size then there are in .277, it's only recently that we're starting to see some bullets designed for longer ranges than the 270 win was intended on shooting to.
The thing to keep in mind is, when the 30-06 was introduced in 1906, the cartridge and rifle could probably shoot more accurately then the optics of the day were capable of making use of. They had no intention of shooting at 500 meters, and anyone who doesnt intend on shooting that far (great majority of hunters) still to this day do not need anything more than the 30-06, or 308 Win, or 270 Win. It's only since the development of more precise scopes that people have felt the need to reach out further with shooting, and naturally manufacturers market the hell out of them as being 'better'.
Most of the old guys shooting their old 30-06's will outshoot me with my 270 WSM every day of the week; everything has it's purpose. And BTW, there are infinitely more bullets with better ballistics and offerings in the .30 caliber size then there are in .277, it's only recently that we're starting to see some bullets designed for longer ranges than the 270 win was intended on shooting to.
The thing to keep in mind is, when the 30-06 was introduced in 1906, the cartridge and rifle could probably shoot more accurately then the optics of the day were capable of making use of. They had no intention of shooting at 500 meters, and anyone who doesnt intend on shooting that far (great majority of hunters) still to this day do not need anything more than the 30-06, or 308 Win, or 270 Win. It's only since the development of more precise scopes that people have felt the need to reach out further with shooting, and naturally manufacturers market the hell out of them as being 'better'.
Glad to see we agree on some things.
I would note however that the Springfield (and the Lee-Enfield and the Mauser) were developed when unit firepower consisted mainly of rifles. Mortars had not been invented, machine guns were very scarce, aircraft and grenade launchers were unheard of and a lack of communication flexibility meant artillery support was inflexible and had to be pre-planned. It all came down to the grunt with range time and a good rifle.
That old girl had sights going out to almost two miles! And it was more than an affection; as late as 1917, USMC personal diaries show normal (non-sniper) Marines regularly shooting out to 1,000 yards. The British Army did about the same and presumably so did the Germans. The Russians got whipped by the Turks in 1877 at Plevna; some Russian sources claimed that they started taking casualties at 2,200 yards - and that was with black-powder Peabody-Martini rifles. No doubt it was volley fire, but today we wouldn't dream of it.
It's only been in the past generation or two that we've gone to 'spray and pray' shooting for the military.
For an expert, we've got amazing kit, fantastic cartridges and superby shooting systems. Sadly, as you have said, most of us just can't use it to its potential. Bambi doesn't read ballistics tables and doesn't wear Kevlar - virtually any rifle round from 6mm on up will put meat on the plate if you can hit your target at any distance going.
he also said "only accurate rifles are interesting". I'd be willing to bet both he and Jack O'Connor would be impressed with the 270 WSM today.
ATOM, thank you for the brief lesson on those firearms, that aperture sight is pretty wicked! I won't touch on the subject of projectile energy for killing a man vs big game, but that is really interesting about shooting at a distance. It reminds me of the skill archers must have had in medieval times vs us lame hunters today with modern compound bows.
Now, I think it's safe to say that today we wouldn't (shouldn't) be willing to take multiple shots at our prey and just hoping to make a lethal shot, which is sort of what I was getting at with the modern optics and making precise 1st shots. I would find it difficult to believe that the soldiers from the early 20th century could consistently hit a pie plate at the kind of distances we are talking about. Another thing to note is that effective killing range is going to be different depending on the species you hunt, Bambi and Moosewinkle may not care about ballistics tables, but they are different creatures to say the least. To say that any large north american game can be ethically hunted at any distance with any caliber larger than 6mm is....irresponsible. Which brings me back to my original point, the equipment has to suit the intended purpose.
ATOM, thank you for the brief lesson on those firearms, that aperture sight is pretty wicked! I won't touch on the subject of projectile energy for killing a man vs big game, but that is really interesting about shooting at a distance. It reminds me of the skill archers must have had in medieval times vs us lame hunters today with modern compound bows.
Now, I think it's safe to say that today we wouldn't (shouldn't) be willing to take multiple shots at our prey and just hoping to make a lethal shot, which is sort of what I was getting at with the modern optics and making precise 1st shots. I would find it difficult to believe that the soldiers from the early 20th century could consistently hit a pie plate at the kind of distances we are talking about. Another thing to note is that effective killing range is going to be different depending on the species you hunt, Bambi and Moosewinkle may not care about ballistics tables, but they are different creatures to say the least. To say that any large north american game can be ethically hunted at any distance with any caliber larger than 6mm is....irresponsible. Which brings me back to my original point, the equipment has to suit the intended purpose.
My point exactly.
TT_270WSM - There's no doubt that modern optics make it easier for the non-expert to extend his range. Never denied that, never will. It also extends the hunting season by about 35 years for us old birds after the eyes and iron sights have a divorce.
My point is that the .30-06 will do anything required for 90-95% of us when it comes to big game and that the advantages for the new superultramegamagnums are to a large point hypothetical for most of us because we simply cannot use that paper superior to advantage. Want a WSM? Go for it. Enjoy and use it well. Seriously. Just don't expect me to believe that it can kill anything 'deader' than the old ones or that most people can hit much at 500 yards.
As to the 6mm rounds, the champion deer and moose round in Ontario, where I grew up, was and probably remains the .30/30. The 6mm Remington has about the same energy at 400 yards as the venerable .30/30 at 100. 400 is about the limit (real world vs beers-on-the-table) for most of us. Would I choose it for my #1 rifle? Hardly. The point is that placement is the most important thing and that, if you hit the right place, the 6mms can do the job.
Last edited:
If you shoot a lot then 30-06 is cheaper with more availability. I went through the same dilemma a few years ago being so concerned about flat trajectory and ballistics. i have both calibers and both take down moose and deer with no problems (the deer and moose have never run away singing you should have used a bullet with better ballistics) and I would not have a problem with a 500 yard shot with either one.... as long as You have a good scope ... But that is just my 2 cents.
Uhhh... Guys there is a difference between the .270 Win. and the .270 WSM.
Uhhh... Guys there is a difference between the .270 Win. and the .270 WSM.
Somehow I doubt the deer/bear/moose would noticed the difference in case configuration or the practical difference in terminal ballistics. Anyone trying a make a 'big case' (pun intended) of the 270 Win vs 270 WSM vs 30/06 is beating a pretty dead horse. Bullet construction between the two calibres would be much more of a variable. That being equal, flip a coin like I said before.
